Just as the incorrect proof by the amateur mathematician or crank is likely to be in a predictable form - a bunch of drawings of graphs with increasingly obtuse

Just as the incorrect proof by the amateur mathematician or crank is likely to be in a predictable form - a bunch of drawings of graphs with increasingly obtuse notation, reference to special cases within special cases, etc., isn't the incorrect proof by working combinatorialists likely to look exactly like this paper? An argument from complex analysis relating to either generating functions, Tutte polynomials, or some similar concept, together with some difficult arguments about how the asymptotics should be correctly used? The fact that this includes arguments which casual practitioners would not be able to confidently use in a crank proof does not evidence its correctness. It just shows us that it's from a different type of person, susceptible to making a different type of error.